Relative risk aversion once more: An analysis of Japanese households' financial asset holding pattern

It is widely accepted that as the total assets increse, households tend to diversify their portfolios. In other words, absolute risk aversion is decreasing. On the other hand, the proportion of risky assets may increase or decrease depending on whether relative risk aversion (RRA) is decreasing or increasing, and its direction is still left open as an empirical question. This study examines the constancy of RRA from Japanese individual households' financial asset holding data collected in 1984. Constant RRA implies that the proportion of risky assets in one's portfolio is constant regardless of the amount of total assets. A casual observation of household portfolio holding pattern suggests that this implication is clearly violated by the data, because there are substantial proportion of households which do not hold any risky assets. Zero-holding, however, may be interpreted as a result of fixed transaction cost incurred by individual investors when they hold risky assets. Then, we pose a question, ‘Do investors hold constant proportion of risky assets, when they decide to hold them?’ In order to explain a substantial number of zero risky asset holders in the sample, we propose a portfolio selection model with a transaction cost, and estimate the model using a variant of Heckman's two-step method. In estimation we control for individual investors' socioeconomic characteristics, as well as income and total assets. The construction of the model imposes nonlinear restrictions on the two estimators, from which we can test the specification of the model. The estimation results suggest that there is a statistically significant decreasing tendency linked to total assets but that its rate of change tapers off as total assets increase. Our results are consistent with the previous studies which tended to support constant RRA for the higher asset holders, and complement previous studies in explaining lower asset holders' investment behavior.     

Myopic loss aversion,reference point,and money illusion

We use the portfolio selection model presented in He and Zhou [Manage. Sci., 2011, 57, 315–331] and the NYSE equity and US treasury bond returns for the period 1926–1990 to revisit Benartzi and Thaler’s myopic loss aversion theory. Through an extensive empirical study, we find that in addition to the agent’s loss aversion and evaluation period, his reference point also has a significant effect on optimal asset allocation. We demonstrate that the agent’s optimal allocation to equities is consistent with market observation when he has reasonable values of degree of loss aversion, evaluation period and reference point. We also find that the optimal allocation to equities is sensitive to these parameters. We then examine the implications of money illusion for asset allocation. Finally, we extend the model to a dynamic setting.     

Decision making with Expected Shortfall and spectral risk measures: The problem of comparative risk aversion

We analyze spectral risk measures with respect to comparative risk aversion following Arrow (1965) and Pratt (1964) for deterministic wealth, and Ross (1981) for stochastic wealth. We argue that the Arrow–Pratt-concept per se well matches with economic intuition in standard financial decision problems, such as willingness to pay for insurance and simple portfolio problems. Different from the literature, we find that the widely-applied spectral Arrow–Pratt-measure is not a consistent measure of Arrow–Pratt-risk aversion. Instead, the difference between the antiderivatives of the corresponding risk spectra is valid. Within the framework of Ross, we show that the popular subclasses of Expected Shortfall, and exponential and power spectral risk measures cannot be completely ordered with respect to Ross-risk aversion. Thus, for all these subclasses, the concept of Ross-risk aversion is not generally compatible with Arrow–Pratt-risk aversion, but induces counter-intuitive comparative statics of its own. Compatibility can be achieved if asset returns are jointly normally distributed. The general lesson is that these restrictions have to be considered before spectral risk measures can be applied for the purpose of optimal decision making and regulatory issues.     

More on Properness: The Case of Mean-Variance Preferences

This paper focuses on the situations where individuals with mean-variance preferences add independent risks to an already risky situation. Pratt and Zeckhauser (Econometrica, 55, 143–154, 1987) define a concept called proper risk aversion in the expected utility framework to describe the situation where an undesirable risk can never be made desirable by the presence of an independent undesirable risk. The assumption of mean-variance preferences allows us to study proper risk aversion in an intuitive manner. The paper presents an economic interpretation for the quasi-concavity of a utility function derived over mean and variance. The main result of the paper says that quasi-concavity plus decreasing risk aversion is equivalent to proper risk aversion.     

Risk aversion vs. individualism: what drives risk taking in household finance?

Despite a considerable premium on equity with respect to risk-free assets, many households do not own stocks. We ask why the prevalence of stockholding is so limited. We focus on individuals’ attitudes toward risk and identify relevant factors that affect the willingness to take financial risks. Our empirical evidence contradicts standard portfolio theory, as it does not indicate a significant relationship between risk aversion and financial risk taking. However, our analysis supports the behavioral view that psychological factors rooted in national culture affect portfolio choice. Individualism, which is linked to overconfidence and overoptimism, has a significantly positive effect on financial risk taking. In microdata from Germany and Singapore, as well as in cross-country data, we find evidence consistent with low levels of individualism being an important factor in explaining the limited participation puzzle.     

Sampling distribution of the relative risk aversion estimator: Theory and applications

Brown and Gibbons (1985) developed a theory of relative risk aversion estimation in terms of average market rates of return and the variance of market rates of return. However, the exact sampling distributions of the relative risk aversion estimators have not been derived. The main purpose of this paper is to derive the exact sampling distribution of an appropriate relative risk aversion estimator. First, we have derived theoretically the density of Brown and Gibbons' maximum likelihood estimator. It is shown that the centralt is not appropriate for testing the significance of estimated relative risk aversion distribution. Then we derived the minimum variance unbiased estimator by a linear transformation of the Brown and Gibbons' maximum likelihood estimator. The density function is neither a central nor a noncentralt distribution. The density function of this new distribution has been tabulated. There is an empirical example to illustrate the application of this new sampling distribution.     

Corporate portfolio management

Summary We solve the optimal portfolio problem in continuous time from the point of view of a corporation, acting on behalf of risk neutral shareholders. Our model fits for example the case of a commercial bank. Risk aversion is generated endogenously by financial frictions, and increases when the value of the firm’s assets decrease. We find a remarkably simple investment policy: invest a multiple of the firm’s equity into the risky asset, keep the rest as cash reserves, and distribute dividends when the value of the firm exceeds some threshold. As a consequence, the firm locally behaves as a Von Neumann-Morgenstern investor with constant relative risk aversion.We thank three anonymous referees for their comments.     

A Generalisation of the Mean-Variance Analysis

In this paper we consider a decision maker whose utility function has a kink at the reference point with different functions below and above this reference point. We also suppose that the decision maker generally distorts the objective probabilities. First we show that the expected utility function of this decision maker can be approximated by a function of mean and partial moments of distribution. This 'mean-partial moments' utility generalises not only mean-variance utility of Tobin and Markowitz, but also mean-semivariance utility of Markowitz. Then, in the spirit of Arrow and Pratt, we derive an expression for a risk premium when risk is small. Our analysis shows that a decision maker in this framework exhibits three types of aversions: aversion to loss, aversion to uncertainty in gains, and aversion to uncertainty in losses. Finally we present a solution to the optimal capital allocation problem and derive an expression for a portfolio performance measure which generalises the Sharpe and Sortino ratios. We demonstrate that in this framework the decision maker's skewness preferences have first-order impact on risk measurement even when the risk is small.     

Age‐Dependent Increasing Risk Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle

We introduce a new preference structure—age‐dependent increasing risk aversion (IRA)—in a three‐period overlapping generations model with borrowing constraints, and examine the behavior of equity premium in this framework. We find that IRA preferences generate results that are more consistent with U.S. data for the equity premium, level of savings and portfolio shares, without assuming unreasonable levels of risk aversion. We find that the relative difference between the two risk aversions (how much more risk‐averse old agents are relative to the middle‐aged) matters more than the average risk aversion in the economy (how much more risk‐averse both cohorts are). Our findings are robust with respect to a number of model generalizations.     

A Model of Return Volatility with Application to Estimating Relative Risk Aversion

We estimate a monthly return volatility model that allows for the abrupt changes in volatility often observed in returns data. Using this model we are able to identify key months likely to correspond to draws from a high volatility regime. Using our model in conjunction with Merton's (1980) model relating expected risk premia to risk we obtain reasonable estimates of the coefficient of relative risk aversion.     

Commodity futures hedging,risk aversion and the hedging horizon

This paper examines the impact of management preferences on optimal futures hedging strategy and associated performance. Applying an expected utility hedging objective, the optimal futures hedge ratio is determined for a range of preferences on risk aversion, hedging horizon and expected returns. Empirical results reveal substantial hedge ratio variation across distinct management preferences and are supportive of the hedging policies of real firms. Hedging performance is further shown to be strongly dependent on underlying preferences. In particular, hedgers with high risk aversion and short horizon reduce hedge portfolio risk but achieve inferior utility in comparison to those with low aversion.     

Home-field advantage or a matter of ambiguity aversion? Local bias among German individual investors

This paper investigates whether familiarity induced by ambiguity aversion can help explaining the local bias phenomenon among individual investors. Using geographic closeness as a proxy for investor familiarity, we find that investors pull out of (unfamiliar) remote stocks and pour into (familiar) local stocks during times of increased market uncertainty. Moreover, the magnitude of this ‘flight to familiarity’ increases in the spread of an investor's ambiguity (about expected returns) between local and remote stocks. Our results prove robust to a number of alternative explanations of local bias. Specifically, we rule out a ‘home-field advantage’, where investors are able to translate information advantages about nearby companies into excess returns on their local stockholdings. We conclude that individual investors’ local bias is induced by ambiguity aversion in the portfolio selection process rather than a trading strategy based on superior information about local companies.     

Asset Allocation and the Liquidity Premium for Illiquid Annuities

Academics and practitioners alike have developed numerous techniques for benchmarking investment returns to properly adjust seemingly high numbers for excessive levels of risk. The same, however, cannot be said for liquidity, or the lack thereof. This article develops a model for analyzing the ex ante liquidity premium demanded by the holder of an illiquid annuity. The annuity is an insurance product that is akin to a pension savings account with both an accumulation and decumulation phase. We compute the yield (spread) needed to compensate for the utility welfare loss, which is induced by the inability to rebalance and maintain an optimal portfolio when holding an annuity. Our analysis goes beyond the current literature, by focusing on the interaction between time horizon (both deterministic and stochastic), risk aversion, and preexisting portfolio holdings. More specifically, we derive a negative relationship between a greater level of individual risk aversion and the demanded liquidity premium. We also confirm that, ceteris paribus, the required liquidity premium is an increasing function of the holding period restriction, the subjective return from the market, and is quite sensitive to the individual's endowed (preexisting) portfolio.     

Myopic loss aversion and stock investments: An empirical study of private investors

Myopic loss aversion was suggested by Benartzi and Thaler (1995) as an explanation for the equity premium puzzle. Its main prediction is that loss averse investors, who evaluate their investment performance too frequently and therefore often observe small losses on their stock portfolios, would invest too little in equity. We investigate the link between myopic loss aversion and actual investment decisions of individual investors, using survey data. Our results are consistent with the predictions of Benartzi and Thaler. Higher myopic loss aversion is associated with lower stock investment as a share of total assets. Investors tend to evaluate their stock portfolio performance too often, which contributes to the prevalence of myopic loss aversion. The effect of myopia is most apparent when investors both evaluate their portfolios frequently and trade stocks regularly.     

w-MPS risk aversion and the shadow CAPM: theory and empirical evidence

This paper presents the shadow capital asset pricing model (CAPM) of Ma [2011a. Advanced Asset Pricing Theory. London: Imperial College Press] as an intertemporal equilibrium asset pricing model, and tests it empirically. In contrast to the classical CAPM – a single-factor model based on a strong behavioral or distributional assumption – the shadow CAPM can be represented as a two-factor model, and only requires a modest behavioral assumption of weak form mean-preserving spread risk aversion. The empirical tests provide support in favor of the shadow CAPM over the classical CAPM, the consumption CAPM, or the Epstein and Zin [1991. “Substitution, Risk Aversion and the Temporal Behavior of Consumption and Asset Returns: An Empirical Analysis”. Journal of Political Economy 99, 263–286] model. Moreover, the shadow CAPM provides a consistent explanation for the cross-sectional variations of expected returns on the stocks and for the time-varying equity premium.     

Loss aversion and the price of risk

This paper derives a simple theoretical relationship between the degree of loss aversion, the concavity/convexity of the value function, and the equilibrium market price of risk. We show that while the degree of loss aversion is key in determining the market price of risk, the convexity/concavity of the value function is much less important in this respect. The theoretical relationship obtained is tested empirically by using international data from 16 different countries during over 100 years, as documented by Dimson et al. [Triumph of the Optimists: 101 Years of Global Investment Returns, 2002 (Princeton University Press)]. The empirical data yield an estimate of λ=2.3 for the loss aversion index. This value is in striking agreement with estimates obtained in the very different methodology of laboratory experiments of individual decision-making.     

Relative risk aversion among the elderly

This paper examines portfolio allocation behavior of the elderly, investigating whether their behavior conforms to Arrow's postulate of increasing relative risk aversion. Additionally, the effects on risk aversion of age, race, gender, education, health status, and the number of children are examined. The source of data is the AHEAD data set that is comprised of households with at least one member aged 70 or over. In the preferred specification, evidence supports a finding of modestly decreasing relative risk aversion and statistical significance for the personal characteristics examined. Implications are drawn for the likely security markets effects of an aging population.     

Increasing return response to changes in risk

Risk aversion theory is based on an individual's choice among risky assets with expected utility in its foundation. It is about investor behavior (i.e., investor choice), under normal circumstances, toward assets with various levels of risk. A positive and marginally diminishing relationship between risk and return exists. This study is about investor behavior related to their response (not choice) to risk. We present an argument and supporting evidence that investors’ return response to risk is increasing with the level of risk. Thus, investor behavior is subject to change and the level of risk is a determinant of such change. We also explain the negative time‐series correlation between risk and return.     

Credibilistic risk aversion

In the probabilistic risk aversion approach, risks are presumed as random variables with known probability distributions. However, in some practical cases, for example, due to the absence of historical data, the inherent uncertain characteristic of risks or different subject judgements from the decision-makers, risks may be hard or not appropriate to be estimated with probability distributions. Therefore, the traditional probabilistic risk aversion theory is ineffective. Thus, in order to deal with these cases, we suggest measuring these kinds of risks as fuzzy variables, and accordingly to present an alternative risk aversion approach by employing credibility theory. In the present paper, first, the definition of credibilistic risk premium proposed by Georgescu and Kinnunen [Fuzzy Inf. Eng., 2013, 5, 399–416] is revised by taking the initial wealth into consideration, and then a general method to compute the credibilistic risk premium is provided. Secondly, regarding the risks represented with the commonly used LR fuzzy intervals, a simple calculation formula of the local credibilistic risk premium is put forward. Finally, in a global sense, several equivalent propositions for comparative risk aversion under the credibility measurement are provided. Illustrated examples are presented to show the applicability of the theoretical findings.     

Consumers’ collision insurance decisions: a mental models approach to theory evaluation

Using interviews with 74 drivers, we elicit and analyze how people think about collision insurance coverage and decide whether to buy coverage, and if so, what deductible level to carry. We compare respondents’ judgments and behaviors to predictions of three models: baseline expected utility (EU) theory, which predicts that insurance is an inferior good, meaning more wealthy people buy less; a modified EU model, which incorporates income constraints and suggests that property insurance is a normal good, meaning more wealthy people buy more; and a mental accounting model which predicts that consumers budget income across consumption categories. The results suggest they purchase insurance as a normal good, guided by a cognitive model that emphasizes budget constraints. Verbal reports reveal a desire to balance two conflicting goals in deductible decisions: keeping premiums ‘affordable’ and keeping deductible level ‘affordable.’ Thus, wealth does not distinguish people by risk aversion, but by ability to pay. In other words, the behavior of less wealthy people is not driven by greater risk aversion, but by their lesser ability to pay, both now and later. We find that a simple heuristic using only vehicle value accounts for most decisions of whether to purchase optional collision coverage: out of 45 respondents who did not have loans on their vehicles, 90% of those with vehicles worth more than $1000 carried collision coverage, while less than 30% of those with lower‐valued vehicles did.